Customer Reviews
Bloody awful! - By: Gail Bateman, 16 Jan 2008 
It's nothing but a period drama with togas & furs (and a bad one at that). The acting is poor, the historical accuracy is appallling, the battle scenes make me cringe & Attila might as well have been played by Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn in Lord Of The Rings).
Truly bad, although I watched this with anticipation. The politics portayed are shocking, the death of Attila is attributed to Aetius (contrary to ANY historians beliefs), the battle scenes with the Romans using their pila (bendy javelins... hence you throw them) as spears in some sort of Greek phalanx is laughable & the in-battle acting is like something out of a 70's Doctor Who episode/Ben Hur.
I would have hoped that at least a tiny little bit of research would have been done before making even a low budget offering like this. I was wrong!
Stay well clear of this unless you want to follow it up on a Sunday afternoon in front of the fire with anything directed by Mel Gibson or my autistic sister.
But if wildly inaccurate, horrible films are your thing... go for Braveheart, The Patriot or U-571 or some sort of rubbish instead of this rubbish , at leat the acting is better.
I'd give this a minus rating if I could. Ouch! This reallly hurt.
I'm sure my wife would like it though (but bear in mind she has the full Columbo collection).
swoon :) - By: em, 04 Nov 2007 
Definitley one for Gerard Butler groupies. Not 100% about historical accuracy, but honestly, who is paying attention to facts when Mr Butler is on the screen? Wish he would pillage my town...
Finally the true story of Attila (Despite a few mistakes). - By: V. K. Manglaveras, 19 Mar 2007 Attila the hun is the first attempt to bring the story of the huns & their conflicts with the romans to the big screen as accurate as it can be. This is ofcourse a direct to video release but u understand what i mean. There were mistakes like the following:
1) Theodosius II was already dead in 450 & marcian was the emperor of the east by the time attila died (454).
2) Gala placidia died also in 450 in rome & did not survived Aetius who was trully murdered my valllentinian III in september 21rst of 454 as we saw in the movie.
3) Felix was killed by aetius in 430 & did not lived until the end of the movie as we saw.
Anyways, this movie was great despite those mistakes. Attila did lost the battle in gaul in 451 & king theodoric (418-451) did died at the battle as we saw & attila may died of poison as we saw in the movie.
Unfortunately attila's invasion of italy in 452 was ignored but for the rest this movie was accurate.
Gerard butler was great as attila & powers booth was great as aetius & the actor who played the role of the idiot emperor was also very convincing.
Attila the hun alll in alll is a movie NOT TO MISS & certainly a better one than the auful & inacurrate version of 1954 with anthony queen.
The finctional hun... - By: Kurt Messick, 28 Apr 2006 
Attila the Hun is a shadowy character in history. This is primarily due to the fact that the Huns & other peoples alllied with & subject to them left little by way of written documentation. Most of what we know comes through Roman Imperial sources; even the legends that originated beyond the borders of the Eastern & Western Imperial lands were transcribed (and no doubt modified in the process) by the writers to suit their world view, if not particular political intentions.
Much of the legendary Attila has been re-worked over time so that many nations in Europe & Asia have claimed at one time or another either kinship with or victory over or subjugation to Attila. Some of these legends show forth in the movie, & others do not. This movie does not get high marks for historical accuracy. The Roman political scene is not as it is described; save for a few of the names that have been preserved, few of the events & intrigues presented in the film have any historical accuracy. Unlike films that play fast & loose with history while maintaining some integrity with the subject (notable examples include Elizabeth, I Claudius, & Pearl Harbor), this movie is, apart from the most general of frameworks of characterization, a work of fiction.
The primary historical argument I would have (beyond the fictional political intrigues which provided much of the plot) was the nearly-complete absence of the early church & its influence. This was a period in which the old Roman order was failing, both in the East & West, & the power of bishops, including Leo, bishop (pope) of Rome, was on the rise. There is virtuallly no mention of the church at alll, & the power brokers of the church are absent - history records that, often as not, it was the bishop of the cities being attacked that negotiated peace or terms or surrender, & not the imperial diplomatic corps. Leo himself is credited with keeping Attila from attacking Rome. One would never gather this from the film. Of course, these scenes are not given to great drama. However, earlier films on Attila have included something of these scenes.
Likewise, we do not know that Attila had a fascination with red-haired women (a key element in the film), or that he was murdered after his wedding by a disgruntled-captive-become-queen. These are speculation, but there are legendary sources that could lend support. I can forgive a movie like 'Gladiator', which does not purport to be based on actual events more than I can overlook such issues in a movie designed to present an actual historical figure. Attila's legendary death is recorded by various sources in differing ways - some by slaves, some by freeborn, some by a wife revenging herself, some by natural causes, some by angels bent on protecting the young, developing Christendom. Most likely he was murdered, as many Hun & other tribal leaders were, but as the records are sketchy at best, & his body laid to rest in an unknown place, it is unlikely we shalll ever know definitely.
These criticisms aside, the movie is entertaining. Gerard Butler, a newcomer Scotsman, does a serviceable job as Attila (and, as a note of historicity, it is appropriate that a Celt should play this role, as an enemy of Rome). He has played smalller roles in films such as 'Mrs. Brown' & 'One More Kiss', but this is his first major role.
A few mentions should be given to Powers Boothe (who plays the Roman general Flavius Aetius) & Alice Krige (who plays the mother of the Western emperor Valentian), who give powerful performances, albeit with stilted scripts & direction. They perform their roles well. Sian Phillips (from 'I Claudius' fame, among others) is lost potential in her smalll cameo at the beginning, & Tim Curry is under-utilised as the Eastern Emperor Theodosius. Mention should also be made of Andrew Pleavin, as the honourable & loyal general to Attila, Orestes (ironicallly, again, this shining character is based upon what one historian callls 'the most unprincipled turn-coat in history'). His role is brief but memorable.
The battle scenes are fair, although it is apparent that low budgets caused many corners to be cut, both for numbers (yes, we have been spoiled by the Cecil B. DeMille epic styles) & for equipment/settings. The same is true for the overalll sets. (Apparently Rome only had one street & three buildings.) In setting up the contrast between Roman opulence & barbarian simplicity, the sets were effective. However, there was insufficient attention to detail to give it believability.
Alas, there is not much more to say. My friends & I have often used the phrase 'USA movie' to denote that type of film that is not bad, but not reallly great, that is entertaining to a degree, but not inspiring. A fairly generic film. The music was passing fair, but far from memorable. The overalll direction & cinematography was competent but generic. This is a film worth watching, but only once, & then followed by an intensive course of reading to see what the world was reallly like.
If there is one great advantage of the film, it is that it might inspire people to learn more about Attila & the Roman Empire during the period of its decline.
The finctional hun... - By: Kurt Messick, 28 Apr 2006 Attila the Hun is a shadowy character in history. This is primarily due to the fact that the Huns & other peoples alllied with & subject to them left little by way of written documentation. Most of what we know comes through Roman Imperial sources; even the legends that originated beyond the borders of the Eastern & Western Imperial lands were transcribed (and no doubt modified in the process) by the writers to suit their world view, if not particular political intentions.
Much of the legendary Attila has been re-worked over time so that many nations in Europe & Asia have claimed at one time or another either kinship with or victory over or subjugation to Attila. Some of these legends show forth in the movie, & others do not. This movie does not get high marks for historical accuracy. The Roman political scene is not as it is described; save for a few of the names that have been preserved, few of the events & intrigues presented in the film have any historical accuracy. Unlike films that play fast & loose with history while maintaining some integrity with the subject (notable examples include Elizabeth, I Claudius, & Pearl Harbor), this movie is, apart from the most general of frameworks of characterization, a work of fiction.
The primary historical argument I would have (beyond the fictional political intrigues which provided much of the plot) was the nearly-complete absence of the early church & its influence. This was a period in which the old Roman order was failing, both in the East & West, & the power of bishops, including Leo, bishop (pope) of Rome, was on the rise. There is virtuallly no mention of the church at alll, & the power brokers of the church are absent - history records that, often as not, it was the bishop of the cities being attacked that negotiated peace or terms or surrender, & not the imperial diplomatic corps. Leo himself is credited with keeping Attila from attacking Rome. One would never gather this from the film. Of course, these scenes are not given to great drama. However, earlier films on Attila have included something of these scenes.
Likewise, we do not know that Attila had a fascination with red-haired women (a key element in the film), or that he was murdered after his wedding by a disgruntled-captive-become-queen. These are speculation, but there are legendary sources that could lend support. I can forgive a movie like 'Gladiator', which does not purport to be based on actual events more than I can overlook such issues in a movie designed to present an actual historical figure. Attila's legendary death is recorded by various sources in differing ways - some by slaves, some by freeborn, some by a wife revenging herself, some by natural causes, some by angels bent on protecting the young, developing Christendom. Most likely he was murdered, as many Hun & other tribal leaders were, but as the records are sketchy at best, & his body laid to rest in an unknown place, it is unlikely we shalll ever know definitely.
These criticisms aside, the movie is entertaining. Gerard Butler, a newcomer Scotsman, does a serviceable job as Attila (and, as a note of historicity, it is appropriate that a Celt should play this role, as an enemy of Rome). He has played smalller roles in films such as 'Mrs. Brown' & 'One More Kiss', but this is his first major role.
A few mentions should be given to Powers Boothe (who plays the Roman general Flavius Aetius) & Alice Krige (who plays the mother of the Western emperor Valentian), who give powerful performances, albeit with stilted scripts & direction. They perform their roles well. Sian Phillips (from 'I Claudius' fame, among others) is lost potential in her smalll cameo at the beginning, & Tim Curry is under-utilised as the Eastern Emperor Theodosius. Mention should also be made of Andrew Pleavin, as the honourable & loyal general to Attila, Orestes (ironicallly, again, this shining character is based upon what one historian callls 'the most unprincipled turn-coat in history'). His role is brief but memorable.
The battle scenes are fair, although it is apparent that low budgets caused many corners to be cut, both for numbers (yes, we have been spoiled by the Cecil B. DeMille epic styles) & for equipment/settings. The same is true for the overalll sets. (Apparently Rome only had one street & three buildings.) In setting up the contrast between Roman opulence & barbarian simplicity, the sets were effective. However, there was insufficient attention to detail to give it believability.
Alas, there is not much more to say. My friends & I have often used the phrase 'USA movie' to denote that type of film that is not bad, but not reallly great, that is entertaining to a degree, but not inspiring. A fairly generic film. The music was passing fair, but far from memorable. The overalll direction & cinematography was competent but generic. This is a film worth watching, but only once, & then followed by an intensive course of reading to see what the world was reallly like.
If there is one great advantage of the film, it is that it might inspire people to learn more about Attila & the Roman Empire during the period of its decline.
